Vivian Balakrishnan
Singapore
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not issue advisories on wait times at overseas airports. Travellers may wish to monitor airline and airport websites, as well as news reports for real-time information on wait times and potential disruptions at specific airports.”
“When the conflict in the Middle East deteriorated and commercial flights were halted in March 2026, the Singapore Government mounted four repatriation flights from Muscat, Riyadh and Jeddah to bring stranded Singaporeans home.”
“The Government has stepped up public engagement to explain our foreign policy fundamentals and responses to key international developments to Singaporeans and to hear their views. We do this through dialogue sessions across segments of society, including students, youths, businesses and community leaders.”
“And the larger point during the Committee of Supply was that precisely, because the world is in such a difficult, prickly, volatile and dangerous state, actually, if we keep our wits about ourselves, we maintain unity and we continue to have this clear eye-realistic, but principled, approach, there are many opportunities for Singapore.”
“Well, in short, I completely agree with you. And that is why we have indeed been hosting these events and in your own capacity as a national athlete and also as an official now, you have seen how it works in practice.”
“Since 2022, about half of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) employees are women. The proportion of women in senior appointments has remained stable at about a quarter. We recognise that overseas postings are disruptive for officers with families, especially female officers who bear greater caregiving responsibilities.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,437 lines we hold for Vivian Balakrishnan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 49.
“Just to summarise, to give you a flavour of the actions: serious violence against a person; serious damage of property; endangering a person's life; serious risk to the health and safety of the public; use of firearms and explosives; involving the release into the environment any dangerous, hazardous, radioactive or harmful substance, any toxic chemical, any microbiological or toxin; disrupts and seriously interferes with any public computer system or services related to infrastructure, banking, financial services, public utilities; disrupts or interferes with the provision of essential emergency services; involves prejudice to public security and national defence; and where the use or threat of these actions is intended to either influence or compel the Government or any other government or any international organisation to do or refrain from doing any such act or to intimidate the public or section of the public. I think it is very clear what Hamas did would certainly fulfil that definition of a terrorist act and have no doubt it would not be allowed in Singapore, neither to finance or support or to get involved. So, I thought that is an important clarification which I shall leave on the table. I would be happy to send the list to the Leader of the Opposition. The other point was his question about the resolutions which happened in 1967. My staff have done a quick review. I told the House we voted in favour of five resolutions which were passed, primarily to do with humanitarian assistance and the status of Jerusalem. There was one other resolution that we abstained on, but in the end, it was not carried because it did not have a sufficient majority.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are the clarifications following on some of the questions which the Leader of the Opposition had asked just now. First, on terrorist activities definition. Let me read a clarification I got from Ministry of Home Affairs. In Singapore, it is an offence for anyone to deal with any individual or organisation regardless of whether it is designated. If the purpose is for terrorist act or otherwise to support terrorism, including the financing of terrorism. It is also an offence to have financial dealings with any individual or organisation that meets the definition of a terrorist or terrorist entity under the Terrorism Suppression of Financing Act 2002, even if it is not specifically designated in the First Schedule. We will not hesitate to take firm action against any individual or entity that poses a security threat, including barring entry into Singapore. The definition of terrorist acts is specific. It is quite long. I refer all of you to the Terrorism Suppression of Financing Act of 2002, both section 2 as well as the Second Schedule. So, the point is, it depends on the actions.”
“I think I stated it just now and I would put out our voting record at the UN. It is Exhibit A. Our view is that those settlements should not be there. If you go by the votes in the Security Council, they breach international law. You do not need to ask me for that. That is on the record.”
“"No" to a superpower, "no" to a friend who has been there at a time when we were very vulnerable and needed help. But without that sense of principle and that consistent adherence to principle, we will make life much more difficult for our country. And the conduct of foreign policy, like I said, will become a very much more dangerous enterprise than it is now. Frankly, for this matter, the foreign policy aspects of it are not difficult. We know what to do. We know how to vote. We know what to say. We can put out correct statements. That is not rocket science. The real challenge – the real political challenge – is domestic. That is why I have been so keen and listening for the support from Members of Parliament of all parties and from the Nominated Members of Parliament as well for this Motion.”
“" I think I have to ask you to trust our security agencies that they know what activities and plans people are up to and where that money is going to. And we do not hesitate to act. It is not a binary switch – you are on the list or you are not on the list. You notice that I have been also very careful to say what I am asking you to confirm today is that the actions of 7 October were acts of terror. If you want to go further back in history, I have made the point earlier that yes, it is not a secret that we do have a good relationship with Israel. But a good relationship does not mean we have to agree with everything they do nor are we apologists for what they do. Specifically, on the issues of occupied territories and settlements, as far as I know, I stand ready to be corrected, we have voted in favour of every resolution that has said that they should not be building settlements in occupied territories. It is worth remembering, to come back to Gaza, that in fact 18 years ago, Israel had to deploy its own military forces in Gaza to force its settlers out of Gaza, 18 years ago. I said just now, Maliki and myself have been to Ramallah a couple of times. Yes, there is a problem in the West Bank, because of the progressive settlements, which make it very difficult for any future settlement. So, yes, Mr Singh, we do vote regularly at the UN in a way which does not please the Israelis, but we have a good relationship based on respect. They know why we take the stand we take. The larger point I want to make to Members of this Houses is that it is why it is so important to operate by principles and to consistently operate by principles. Because from time to time, whoever is on this side of the House will have to say "no".”
“I just want to, I suppose, double confirm on the actions that Hamas conducted on 7 October targeting innocent civilians at home, killing women, children and taking hostages – is the WP's position that those are acts of terrorism? [Interruption.] Sir, I will reflect that the Member has confirmed. And Mr Gerald Giam, same? They are acts of terror. So, that is why I said I was more reassured, Mr Speaker, after listening to both of them, because the initial statement did leave some room for doubt and ambiguity. My conclusion from this recent confirmation is that actually, you stand four-square with us, with the Motion and with the Government's position. I want to welcome that because, again, the arguments on foreign policy must stop at our shores. And on something as vital as terrorism, we cannot afford to have political parties trying to outflank each other in order to fish for votes. So, I am grateful for the WP's confirmation that you stand on this issue, that what happened on that day was a terrorist act, deserves unequivocal condemnation. And I think PSP has also made its position clear. The second line of queries about terrorists' designation. Generally, different countries have different ways of designating. The United States and the European Union (EU) have their list of terrorist organisations. The UN generally works on the basis of what is designated by the Security Council. In Singapore, we do have a committee. This is primarily a security committee. What we are looking out for are acts of terrorism, financing of terrorism. Whether someone or some organisation is or is not on a list in the UN or some other country is just one factor under consideration. There is that old saying, "If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.”
“I thank Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and I call on all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, to support this Motion and to uphold these principles which are essential for Singapore's survival. [Applause.]”
“While most Singaporeans were able to leave by commercial means, a few who were unable to do so departed via dedicated evacuation flights which were organised by other countries. I need to express our gratitude to the governments of Australia, Canada, Portugal and Korea for helping our Singaporeans to leave Israel safely. Mr Speaker, this latest conflagration is just the most recent episode of a complex, long-running conflict in the Middle East. As human beings, we cannot remain detached and inured to human suffering, but we know these cycles of violence will recur unless they come to the nub of the problem. As Singaporeans, we do care and we do care deeply, but this episode is also a reminder to all Singaporeans that we do have our national interests at stake. What are they? We must reject terrorism in all its forms. No excuses, no ifs, no buts, no short-term political advantage. Reject terrorism. If attacked, all of us here must give the government of the day the ability to exercise the right of self-defence. But even when it does so, we will expect the government of the day to uphold international law. As Singaporeans, we will continue to extend humanitarian assistance and protection to all civilians. We should support the peaceful resolution of disputes. We must nurture and protect our own precious cohesion and harmony. We must never allow conflicts elsewhere to divide us domestically. I am glad that today that my sense of the House is that we have unanimity, we will have consensus in voting for this Motion. I make this appeal as the Minister for Foreign Affairs that our ability to conduct consistent and coherent foreign policy in a very volatile and dangerous world depends on domestic cohesion and consensus. I fully support this amended Motion.”
“The Mufti, Dr Nazirudin Nasir wrote a letter, which I hope every single one of you will read, to express solidarity and support to the Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, who replied in the same spirit. It was an exemplary gesture of goodwill that reflects so well on our religious harmony. But it is actually quite rare in the world for a Mufti and a Rabbi to be able to correspond like that at a moment of tension and high emotion. And I can assure you, the Government had nothing to do with this. But we saw it and approved of it and we should all be grateful to them. Let me also make a secondary point here that it is worth emphasising that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a religious conflict. At its core, the conflict has always been about territory, self-determination and identity, complicated by intra-Palestinian and intra-Israeli domestic politics. And as I have said before, it provides fertile ground for extremists on both sides to misuse religion to further their political aims and we must not fall into their trap. The seventh point is that the safety of Singaporeans abroad is always a priority for us in MFA. On 7 October 2023, we advised Singaporeans to leave Israel and the Palestinian Territories as soon as possible. We reached out to Singaporeans who had registered with MFA and we facilitated the departure of those who needed assistance. But even today, you might be surprised to know that 40 registered Singaporeans remain in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. We do our best to remain in contact with them; they have chosen to remain. More than 120 Singaporeans heeded our advice and left by land or air earlier.”
“The Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh visited Singapore last year whilst Prime Minister Lee, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, Minister Mohamad Maliki Osman and I have visited Ramallah, in fact, on more than one occasion. We opened our Singapore Representative Office in Ramallah in 2022. My sixth point is that we must not allow external political events, painful as they are, to divide us in Singapore. Yesterday, the Prime Minister reminded us this is not our quarrel. This is a quarrel amongst our friends outside. Our job is to be sympathetic, compassionate, to speak truth to them, to be helpful, but not to pour oil on the fire. And bear in mind, actually, both sides claim to be the children of Abraham. This is the ultimate example of sibling fratricide. Both sides have suffered tragic losses and they deserve our sympathy and support. But come back now to Singapore and be very wary and careful in how we reflect our compassion, our principles, our values. Understand that strong emotions are engaged, but we must not fall prey to what we see in other countries where strong emotions have led to violent clashes, to hate speech and to exclusion. And as many of you have illustrated, often fueled by disinformation. Our religious and racial harmony is very precious. We must not allow anything to break this or split our society. And it is heartening that so many of our faith and community leaders strongly feel this, say this and operate on this basis. Our Muslim community, in particular, have responded in a very restrained, responsible and responsive manner, working in concert with other communities to collectively raise funds for humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian civilians in Gaza.”
“But soon, fierce political rivalry between Hamas and Fatah occurred. In fact, it was not just a matter of elections and "you win" and "I win"; it was actually civil war, violence. They killed each other. The rise of the radical hard-right extremists in both societies, in fact, have made a peaceful political settlement almost impossible. We sit here or stand here and talk about a two-state solution. But we are talking. That is where the frontline is. And actually support for a two-state negotiated political solution has been dropping, waning in both those societies. In fact, in a very perverse way, the extremist right-wing in both Israel and amongst the Palestinians believe in a "one-state solution". But if you think about it, a one-state solution, by definition, means the violent elimination of the other. So, I am making the point this is difficult, this is complicated and we should respect that difficulty. Nevertheless, it is our sincere hope that, over time, both sides will muster the political will. In fact, I should digress, they need the political leadership with the conviction, the courage and the political capital, which they are willing to expend in order to make a two-state solution a reality. And if they do not, then they are doomed to repeat the cycles of violence. So, in the meantime, we will continue to engage the Palestinian Authority. We will support their capacity-building efforts through the Enhanced Technical Assistance Package. We have regular high-level exchanges and visits with the Palestinian Authority, which have allowed us to meet them, hear them and discuss issues with them candidly.”
“Thank you. The point is, we are good friends. But good friends also speak truth, even if it is disagreeable and not the most comfortable to the person on the other side. And our ability to speak truth to friends and to be friends to both sides, even while they are locked in mortal conflict, is a privileged position but one that can only be maintained if we are consistent and we operate on the basis of principles. Unfortunately, the peace process in both Israel and Palestine – and Members have heard a good synopsis on the history by Mr Vikram Nair in his opening speech, I hope you paid attention to it – but the upshot of that process—first, I would remind all Members that being a peacemaker in the Middle East is dangerous. Mr Vikram Nair mentioned President Anwar Sadat. When he made peace with Israel in Camp David, I think they signed it in 1978; by 1981, he was assassinated. In Israel, then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in fact, was the Israel Defense Force (IDF) Chief-of-Staff during the 1967 war. So, this is no dove. This is a realist, a General, a Commander and a soldier. Mr Vikram Nair reminded us that it was Mr Yitzhak Rabin and Mr Yasser Arafat who signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, and subsequently a second round in 1995. In fact, this is what has led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. It led to the Israelis pulling out of Gaza. But, as you all would know, Mr Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in November 1999, not by an Arab, but by an Israeli extremist. As for the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority consisted initially of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) because, in fact, the Olso Accords provided, for the first time ever, the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist and the Israelis recognised the PLO as a representative of the Palestinians.”
“We have consistently stated for a long time that Israel must accept a Palestinian state, just as Palestinians must also accept Israel's right to exist. We have expressed our firm opposition to violations of international law and to unilateral measures which imperil the prospects for peace. Many of you know that we have got good relations with Israel. I hope you also know that we have good relations with the Palestinian people and with the Palestinian Authority. But look at our voting record in the United Nations. During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli forces occupied the Old City of Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank after Jordan attacked Israel. In 1967 – some Members of this House were not born yet – following the war, we voted in support of all the UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions calling on Israel to rescind unilateral measures taken to change the status of Jerusalem. We voted again, like this, in 2017. We have also voted in support of UNGA resolutions that reject Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a list illustrating Singapore's past voting positions at the United Nations? Members can also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL App.”
“I commended the Egyptian government's efforts to open the Rafah crossing to facilitate the flow of humanitarian goods into Gaza, and equally, the possible evacuation of seriously injured persons for medical treatment. The day before, I had spoken to the Foreign Minister of the UAE, who was also trying to work out plans, perhaps, to evacuate injured children and their families for treatment elsewhere. We strongly support all these efforts by their immediate neighbours, as well as by the UN and all the other relief organisations to increase aid to Gaza. I think Members are all aware that the Singapore Government contributed seed funding of about $300,000 to the Singapore Red Cross, which is working with its partners to support the relief efforts in Gaza and working closely with the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the Egyptian Red Crescent Society. In fact, right now, I think Singaporeans have donated nearly $5 million to the fundraising drives by the SRC and the RLAF. In fact, I am sure more will come in in the weeks to come. Later tonight, Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman will be leaving. He will be going to Cairo. He will also help to ensure facilitation and that the goodness of the hearts of Singaporeans will be directed through the right channels. He will explain a little bit more after my speech. Fifth point, Singapore continues to uphold our long-standing and consistent position that a negotiated two-state solution, consistent with relevant UN Security Council resolutions, especially 242 and 338, that a two-state solution is the only viable option for a comprehensive, just and durable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
“In the conduct of any military campaign, politicians and commanders alike must be careful to ensure that their words do not imply to their troops that the laws of war can be disregarded, nor employ language whose effect is to dehumanise a civilian population." I want to emphasise that last sentence, "to dehumanise a civilian population", because usually, that is a very clear indication that conflict between countries, states or civilisations is about to begin. And the moment that human beings can dehumanise the other is the time when unspeakable horror, barbarity and terrorism is conducted. Any alleged violation of international humanitarian law in this conflict should therefore be investigated in accordance with international law. I think Member of Parliament, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had asked that question earlier. Yes, we will support the investigation of all allegations after the war in accordance with international law and we hope that all parties will cooperate in these investigations. History will judge each party's response not only by whether and how immediate threats are resolved, but also by the effects on the long-term stability and security of the region. Fourth, humanitarian assistance must reach the affected civilian populations immediately. That is why we call on all parties to enable this, particularly, Israel and Egypt which have immediate borders with Gaza. Yesterday, I spoke to the Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. Frankly, he was tired, almost demoralised. I told him Singapore understands the tremendous strain that Egypt, as an immediate neighbour, faces. I said we want to support you, we have our people in Singapore who care, we are raising funds, and let us know how we can assist Egypt.”
“Have no doubt – if Singapore is ever attacked, we would certainly assert and exercise the right of self-defence. Third, all countries must ensure that if military action is taken in exercising this right of self-defence, they must abide by the principles of necessity and proportionality. They must also comply with the laws of war, including the principle of distinction and humanity enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. In such times like this, it is crucial that decisions are not made out of anger, blind wrath and hatred, but are made in line with moral values and legal principles that shape our common humanity. In a jointly written Financial Times commentary last month, a group of distinguished Jewish jurists – and these include experts in international humanitarian law – they strongly counselled Israel and its leaders to act in a restrained and thoughtful way that would not make the country's problems worse. One of these jurists, in fact, included Lord David Neuberger, who was the former President of the Supreme Court of the UK. It is worth quoting them. Let me quote one whole paragraph in full: "International law forbids sieges of civilian populations. Gaza is home to some two million fellow human beings (almost half of whom are children) and it would be a grave violation of international law to hold them under siege and while doing so deprive them of basic necessities such as food and water. To be clear, collective punishment is prohibited by the laws of war. Equally, international law requires combatants to ensure minimum destruction to civilian life and infrastructure. An intent to cause indiscriminate damage, rather than behaving in a precise manner to minimise damage would, if established, constitute a grave violation of international law.”
“To date, health authorities in Gaza have estimated that more than 9,000 Palestinians, including many women and children in Gaza have died, many more have suffered injuries and over 1.5 million would have been displaced from their homes without adequate shelter, food, water or medical attention. At the 10th UN General Assembly Emergency Special Session on 27 October 2023, Singapore voted for a humanitarian truce so that immediate and sustained humanitarian provision of essential supplies and services to civilians throughout the Gaza Strip can be provided. I think Members have a copy of that resolution that we voted for, including the explanation of vote by our Permanent Representative, Mr Burhan Gafoor, which again, made the point that there were glaring omissions in that resolution, to call out Hamas for conducting an act of terror and for not acknowledging the right of self-defence on the part of Israel, which I will explain a little bit more later on. Mr Speaker, let me take this opportunity to explain the principles underpinning the Singapore Government's position on this unfolding tragedy. First, Singapore must and must always take a zero-tolerance approach towards terrorism. We have to be categorical in rejecting terrorism, whoever, whenever, wherever it is perpetrated. And as I said just now, we do so not just out of sympathy, but because terrorism is a clear and present danger and threat for Singapore and Singaporeans. Second, international law dictates that all states have the legitimate and inherent right to defend themselves. This is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. I do not think I need to remind this House that this is a very important principle for Singapore.”
“Being so small, exposed, vulnerable, multiracial. Singapore must take a clear and unambiguous stand against terrorism in all circumstances. I was somewhat reassured when I listened to the Leader of the Opposition's speech just now, where he now seems to have clarified that the attack that was launched by Hamas was not simply a military operation, but in fact, deserves to be condemned. I think Mr Gerald Giam was even more specific. I think you used the word "unequivocally condemn" the attacks by Hamas. I could not help noticing that both Members of the WP were unable to use the word terrorism, I will leave that for you to clarify later on. But I must share with you that when I first saw your published statement, it left room for ambiguity. I think your speeches in this Chamber today are more reassuring, but I would feel even better if you can clearly and unequivocally say indiscriminate attacks on civilians, on women, on children and taking hostages is a clear and present act of terror, and say that for the sake of Singapore and Singaporeans. These attacks have obviously deeply shaken the Israelis' sense of safety and security. We now know that Israel has responded by launching an intensive aerial bombardment on Gaza. It imposed a blockade on the delivery of food, water and fuel supplies. On 28 October, Israeli troops expanded their ground operations in Gaza to destroy Hamas' military capacity and its vast network of underground tunnels, much of which, it is alleged, is located under civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. Israel's intensive bombardment and blockade has caused a massive humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion in the name of Mr Vikram Nair and as amended by Mr Alex Yam. This conflict occurs thousands of kilometres away and has a long, complicated and often violent history going back thousands of years. But all Singaporeans are horrified, are saddened by this latest escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Anyone with a heart must feel pain when we witness the suffering of fellow human beings – regardless of race, language, religion, ideology or allegiance. Early in the morning of 7 October 2023, Hamas launched several thousand rockets into Israel. At the same time, more than 1,000 militants infiltrated Israeli territory and killed more than 1,400 persons. The victims included innocent civilians at home, many of them asleep, young people attending a concert and several of our fellow ASEAN nationals working on farms. Hamas also abducted more than 200 civilians including senior citizens, women and children, who today are held as hostages in Gaza. Let me be clear and unambiguous: what Hamas did on 7 October was an act of terrorism and it involved indiscriminate killing and extreme brutality. It was not a military operation, targeted at military targets. Such acts cannot be justified by any rationale, any historical grievance, any religious belief, any context. These acts of indiscriminate killing, torture and kidnapping of innocent civilians are acts of terror. Period. This is why Singapore has strongly condemned the terrorist attack by Hamas and why we have called for the safe, immediate and unconditional release of all civilian hostages. It is in our absolute national interest to hold fast to this stand, not just because we feel sorry for innocent victims, but because our national interests are at stake.”
“Mr Speaker, Question Nos 1 to 34 on the Order Paper relate to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. As these queries relate to the same subject matter as the upcoming Motion on "Solidarity, Security and Peace – the Israel-Hamas Conflict", which would be debated later today, I would like to seek your permission, Sir, on behalf of all the respective Ministers to whom the Parliamentary Questions have been directed, to provide answers to the questions during the debate on the Motion. Given the strong public interest on this topic, we can expect Members to raise a similar range of questions and supplementary questions during the debate on the Motion. As there is obviously a lot of overlap, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, together with the other Ministries, will provide a response to the queries on the Order Paper during the debate on the Motion, in order to address them completely and holistically. Any Member who wishes to seek clarifications on the Government's response may also do so during the debate on the Motion. I seek your permission, Sir.”
“There have been various statements and outcome documents from the recently concluded Association of Southeast Asian Nations and related Summits which are in the public domain. Singapore’s position is that all claims in the South China Sea must be in accordance with international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC), negotiators have completed the second reading of the Single Draft Negotiating Text. Singapore will continue to work towards an effective and substantive COC that is in accordance with universally recognised principles of international law, including the 1982 UNCLOS, and that safeguards the rights and interests of all parties in the South China Sea.”
“Mr Singh, is there really a delay? Look at the timeline which I have said, and you have just repeated. First of all, I take responsibility. I am in charge. I was in charge of the programme. I became aware end of — no, I was asked the question by a member of the public, not even in this House, end of October. I spend November double checking the facts, coordinating, examining the policy options, discussing with my colleagues. And I also told my staff we will clear all these, whichever way it falls. A question was asked by Mr Christopher de Souza in December. Unfortunately, we did not sit in December. Early January, we answered it. I have added further clarifications. I then embarked on a process. In fact, we had to get a Certificate of Urgency for legislative changes. In February, we had this debate. I do not think I delayed or obfuscated and, at all times, I have always been upfront and clean. Mr Leong knows that as well. I mean, I have been here long enough. People know the way I operate. So, that is why I am objecting to your insinuation that there was any undue delay or any attempt at obfuscation or lack of transparency. That is not the way we do it.”
“That is when you will recall I said in this House, right from this stand, I had many sleepless nights deciding what we do about this. Do we make legislative changes? Or do we instruct the Police, or could we even instruct the Police, to proscribe their access to this data, although legally speaking, they have? So, there were sleepless nights on my part; intense discussions internally between multiple agencies on part of the Government in November 2020. And my staff will also recall I told them, whatever it is, when we finish this internal review, we will come back here, and we will come clean in my usual fashion and explain the situation. We did not have a Sitting in December, but I believe it was Mr Christopher de Souza who filed a question. I think it was in December 2020. And on 4 January 2021, the question was answered, I believe, by the Minister of State of Home Affairs, Mr Desmond Tan. On 5 January 2021, I added further clarifications and I also indicated, I think a few days after that, that we will come back to Parliament in February 2021 with legislative changes to circumscribe the access by law enforcement agencies into TraceTogether data. I have taken some pains and I am sorry to take up the time, but I hope Mr Singh will realise that I have never deliberately engaged in any obfuscation, prevarication or delay. I have at all times acted in good faith. I have tried to make sure that in design, in execution and in coordination of a complex matter in an emergency, I have been transparent and forthright with the people and I object to your characterisation and use of an old debate which was settled in Parliament to suggest that there is a pattern of delay, prevarication and obfuscation. I object to that characterisation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to address Mr Pritam Singh's suggestion that we had somehow been tardy or reticent with information with respect to TraceTogether. I do not want this to become a whole repeat of an extended discussion which we had on this matter. Mr Singh would remember this. We had this extended discussion in early 2021. But just to refresh your memory, TraceTogether is a system that temporarily collected Bluetooth proximity data without GPS coordinates, without movement data and the data is expunged after 25 days. When I first was involved with the design of the system, it was purely for the purposes of contact tracing, dealing with the clear and present danger that COVID-19 presented to our population. I made a statement – I think it was in June 2020 – which omitted four important words. The four missing words which I said before was "subject to prevailing legislation". What I had not known when I made the assurance that the data would not be available to law enforcement agencies was that section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in fact applied to TraceTogether data, as it does, to all other information which a person may have access to, which the Police may need for the purposes of investigation. Anyway, I made that statement in ignorance of the prevailing legislation, and I omitted those four words in June 2020. Round about, I believe, near the end of October 2020, a member of the public wrote to me and said, "Are you sure? Please check." So, I said thank you and I did get my staff to check. So, that was already into November. When my staff in the Smart Nation Office then told me actually, section 20 of the CPC may be relevant.”
“The Preliminary Needs Assessment (PNA) conducted in March 2019 was the most recent humanitarian needs assessment. The report identified three potential areas of collaboration: (a) enhancing the capacity of reception and transit centres; (b) strengthening information dissemination; and (c) support for the provision of basic services. The ASEAN Secretariat’s Ad-Hoc Support Team was established to monitor the implementation of PNA. Comprehensive Needs Assessments (CNAs) will be conducted once repatriation commences. However, progress has stalled, given the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing political instability in Myanmar and the recent Cyclone Mocha. Singapore has strongly supported ASEAN’s efforts and contributed over S$1 million in bilateral aid to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of displaced persons from Rakhine State. We are prepared to send further consignments of aid and stand ready to support future CNAs once repatriation commences.”
“The Five-Point Consensus remains the basis of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s position on Myanmar. ASEAN’s external partners, including the United Nations (UN), as affirmed by the UN Security Council resolution 2669 of 21 December 2022, have important roles to play in working with ASEAN to uphold the Five-Point Consensus and facilitate national reconciliation in Myanmar. Singapore will continue to support the ASEAN Chair Indonesia and fellow ASEAN member states to press the Tatmadaw to cease violence and implement the Five-Point Consensus swiftly and fully. The key to peace in Myanmar lies with all Myanmar stakeholders concerned and their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue to seek a peaceful solution in the interests of their people.”
“Discussions with China on visa exemptions are ongoing.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of Singaporeans who have been placed under exit bans by foreign countries. Foreign authorities do not have an obligation to inform the Government when exit bans are issued to Singaporeans.”
“Finally, I would like to restate categorically that the Singapore Government has not conducted any military sales to the Myanmar military in recent years, including during the period covered in Mr Andrews' report, that is, between February 2021 and December 2022. Indeed, Mr Andrews himself reaffirmed in his report that "there are no indications the Government of Singapore has approved, or is involved in, the shipment of arms and associated materials to the Myanmar military." We will continue to work closely and constructively with Mr Andrews to seek specific, verifiable and, where possible, court-admissible information to advance our investigations. In conclusion, let me reiterate that the Government remains committed to implementing our policy to prevent the transfer of arms and dual-use items which have been assessed to have potential military application to Myanmar, where there is serious risk that they may be used to inflict violence against unarmed civilians. We will not hesitate to take action against any individual or entity which contravenes this.”
“Third, we are looking into specific details of the alleged US$254 million worth of "arms and related goods" that were shipped through Singapore-based entities to the Myanmar military. In Mr Andrews' report, there were no indications that specific armaments were being transferred to the Myanmar military. Instead, under the category of "arms", what was cited were only spare parts and equipment, without details of what these constituted. The other major categories of items covered in the report included "dual use supplies" which included items, such as computers, electrical components and medical equipment. Another category of items was "manufacturing equipment" which comprised items like welding machines and overhead cranes; and "raw materials" which covered items, such as steel beams and aluminium ingots, pipes and valves, and fabric. Members would appreciate from these descriptions that the items do not necessarily constitute "arms" or weaponry in its ordinary meaning. Many of them, such as computers and medical equipment, are also non-controlled items. It is difficult to isolate specific suspicious transactions from such broad categories. We are, therefore, seeking more details, such as export transaction documents, to ascertain how these transactions are connected to the manufacture of weapons in Myanmar, so that our checks and investigations can be more thorough and effective based on objective evidence. At the same time, let me make clear that it is not the Singapore Government's policy intention to block legitimate trade with Myanmar. Doing so would further set back the country's development and exacerbate the suffering of the civilian population of Myanmar.”
“Let me first make clear that the Singapore Government has not imposed a general trade embargo on Myanmar. We do not want to add to the suffering of Myanmar's civilian population. In 2022, Singapore's total bilateral trade with Myanmar was $5.8 billion. The allegations in the May 2023 report by United Nations Special Rapporteur for Myanmar, Thomas Andrews, pertain to supposedly US$254 million worth of goods over a two-year period. Nonetheless, we take Mr Andrews' report very seriously and have requested him to provide specific and verifiable evidence to aid our efforts. An initial list of 47 entities were identified. More recently, another 91 entities were identified, too. I seek Members' understanding that this is an interim update as the investigations are ongoing. First, nine entities are no longer registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, which means that they can no longer carry on business or operate as legal entities in Singapore. This includes entities that were allegedly involved in the transfer of components and spare parts for fighter aircraft, equipment for the Myanmar Navy, as well as radios, research and equipment for electronic warfare. Second, most of the 47 entities no longer have business facilities with Singapore banks. The banks will review the remaining accounts and take appropriate measures, including enhanced scrutiny to ensure that the transactions processed by these entities are not suspicious. Such measures would curtail their ability to continue with any undesirable business. As Myanmar is on the blacklist of the Financial Action Task Force, financial institutions in Singapore have also been applying enhanced due diligence for Myanmar-linked customers and transactions that present higher risks.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had absolutely no communication with the property agent or with SLA, so there was no need for my phone to be surrendered. However, I should add that every single message between my wife and the MA, and subsequently, with SLA staff, was in the hands of CPIB. Because you might remember, when you send a message, it is two ways. So, they had sight of every single message. It just shows you the thoroughness in which this investigation was conducted. I assume the vast majority of Members here have never had the privilege of interrogation by CPIB. Let me assure all Members, it is a most uncomfortable, invasive, intrusive, thorough process, and I do not wish it upon any of you.”
“I should say, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, this is not a good example of – how shall I put it – of strenuous negotiations, because we basically gave in to what was asked in the first place. But I should say that when I conduct foreign affairs, I am a far sharper negotiator. Anyway, Colliers subsequently sent a standard tenancy agreement for 3+2+2 years and this was signed, I think, in October 2019 by my wife. I should say, right up to this point, we were not aware of the guide rent, we were not even aware that there had been two prior bids in July and August 2018, and the two prior bids were at $12,000 and at $5,000. I was not aware of this until CPIB published its report. Arguably, maybe we should have held out longer. But never mind, the point is, we signed. In 2022, my wife requested and was granted a renewal for a second term, this time of 3+2 years. The rental was increased. We currently pay $20,000 a month. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude my brief statement. My wife and I were acutely aware that although we were dealing with Colliers' property agent, the ultimate counterparty to our tenancy agreement was the Government of Singapore. At all times, we were scrupulously careful to ensure that everything was aboveboard. I must say the agent from Colliers and all the staff from SLA have always conducted themselves professionally and with utmost integrity in all their engagements with us. We should be grateful that we have civil servants and people from the private sector who act as our agents, who behave and conduct themselves to this standard because this maintains the integrity of our system. I will be happy to take questions later from Members.”
“Just to give Members an idea of what it looked like then: the roof was leaking; the wooden floor upstairs had holes so you could see downstairs from upstairs; the staircase, the wooden fixtures in it were rotting; there was major termite infestation and it was the first time in my life I had seen termite mounds in the garden. And it was obvious that extensive repairs would have been necessary to make the house liveable. Around the property itself, there were several large trees which, in fact, had uprooted, collapsed, damaged the fence, and the undergrowth was unkempt. Actually, we saw snakes both inside and outside the house. And there were also three adjacent properties that were undergoing comprehensive rebuilding, with all the associated noise and dust. So, we went into this with our eyes open. The asking rent was $19,000. We said okay, we will offer $19,000, but we wanted essential repairs of the house to be conducted and upgrading of the toilets, and for these to be done by the landlord, the managing agent, before we took over the property. The managing agent from Colliers rejected this offer. I should say they rejected the offer because they said upgrading the toilets would constitute improvement of the property. So, anyway, they said no. Subsequently, we agreed to bear the cost of improving, upgrading the toilets at our expense. In fact, we have since spent more than $200,000 on a variety of improvement works to the property and we also know that all this money that has been spent cannot be recovered when the tenancy expires. In other words, we accepted the asking rent stipulated by the property agent and the limited scope of works proposed by the Managing Agent.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain "why" and "how" my family came to rent the property at 31 Ridout Road. My wife and I have four children aged between 17 and 34. By 2018, two of them were married and we were blessed with two grandchildren and were expecting more to come. We decided to try to bring the entire extended family together under one roof whilst the grandchildren were still young. I think older Members will appreciate that attempting to do this requires consent and concurrence of the son-in-law, the daughter-in-law and it also means each nuclear family has to live with their children in the same bedroom. My children agree and we began this journey. We were aware at that time that there were hundreds of rustic black and white bungalows scattered throughout Singapore, some of them a century old. We had also done some initial due diligence. We went through the State Property Information Office (SPIO) website, so, we had a sense of the market at that point in time. And, of course, Members also know that if we go back to 2018, the rental market, in fact, was declining. So, in September 2018, my wife was visiting a friend and happened to drive past the property at 31 and there was a prominent "For Lease" sign with a telephone number. She called the number and it turned out to be a property agent from Colliers International Consultancy and Valuation Private Limited. The property agent showed her several black and white properties in the vicinity and indicated an asking rent of $19,000 for 31 Ridout Road. However, the property had been vacant for many years. Later on, we discovered it had, in fact, been vacant since, I think, July 2013 and, unfortunately, was in an advanced state of disrepair.”
“There are currently no MFA-registered Singaporeans in Sudan. As conveyed in MFA Spokesperson’s Comments of 27 April 2023, two Singaporean families, comprising 14 Singaporeans and a family member, were safely evacuated from Khartoum, Sudan to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with assistance from the governments of Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Singapore Government reiterates its deepest appreciation to the three governments for facilitating the safe evacuation of our citizens.”
“In-person negotiations on the Code of Conduct (COC) for the South China Sea had resumed last May, after delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Negotiators are currently on the second reading of the draft text. Singapore will continue to work towards an effective and substantive COC that is in accordance with the universally recognised principles of international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and that safeguard the rights and interests of all parties in the South China Sea.”
“There are no developments on a potential third land link. Completing the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link project is the top priority.”
“The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Chair Indonesia has strongly condemned the recent airstrikes by the Myanmar military, or Tatmadaw, in Sagaing Region, Myanmar, on 11 April 2023. Singapore supports this statement. Any attack on civilians is reprehensible and cannot be condoned. Such acts of violence contradict the Five-Point Consensus formulated by the ASEAN Leaders and accepted by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing at their meeting on 24 April 2021 in Jakarta. Given the limited progress in the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus, the Leaders at the ASEAN Summits in November 2022, agreed on a series of steps to send a clear signal to the Tatmadaw. Indonesia has been engaging stakeholders to encourage inclusive dialogue in Myanmar. It has called for the cessation of violence and taken steps to facilitate humanitarian assistance to the people of Myanmar. Myanmar's neighbours outside of ASEAN and our external partners, including the United Nations, also have important roles to play in working with ASEAN to address the crisis and facilitate national reconciliation in Myanmar. Nevertheless, the rate limiting factor for progress in the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus is not ASEAN or our external partners, but the stakeholders within Myanmar, especially the Tatmadaw. We should continue to press the Tatmadaw to cease violence and implement the Five-Point Consensus swiftly and fully.”
“There are things that we discuss. There are things that we – when we are having a forum in Parliament and with the general public, when there is a need to reflect the diversity of views. And I think it was entirely legitimate for the Minister for Law to do so. Having said that, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, my first job is to protect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial integrity of Singapore. And therefore, there may be times when what I say publicly is entirely aimed at achieving that. I do not wish to have words put into my mouth, or to make public pronouncements beyond what I have already said, to say that beware that small countries do not get caught up in the manoeuvres, the to-ing and fro-ing, and the dangerous, sometimes escalatory, rhetoric or action the superpowers engage in. And I say it my way, but I believe that my statements are entirely consistent with the rest of my Cabinet colleagues, and we stand and we take collective responsibility for that. I think I have said enough, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am still absolutely certain that there is unanimity in this House on this matter of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I thank the Member for her support. Can I assume I have her support?”
“And so, we cannot accept one country attacking another without justification, arguing that its independence was a result of historical errors or crazy decisions. Such a rationale would go against internationally recognised legitimacy and the territorial integrity of many countries, including Singapore." So, I think these are matters on which we are all agreed. You can get into the historical details of how a situation unfolded. Our objective in Southeast Asia is not to let a repeat of the European tragedy occur here, in this part of the world. In trying to avoid a parallel of that situation here, I think it is entirely legitimate for us to consider all views, diverse views, opposing views even, on how the situation in Europe came about. I would urge the Member to understand what is at state, understand why we have taken a stand, understand why that stand has to be maintained, upheld and, I hope, shared across the House by all the parties represented here; and also agree that we must not let a repeat of Europe – a continent which unfortunately has been a source of two world wars in the last century – we do not want a repeat of that here. And finally, remember that a small nation is always vulnerable. And again, to repeat something I have said multiple times here, never let ourselves be a vassal state, a stalking horse, a cat's paw for any other power. Understand that when we get entangled in such matters, the ultimate loser is always the smaller state. I thank the Member for her interest and I am grateful for her support, and I mean that in all sincerity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, let me again step back and take a strategic look at this. Why have we taken such a categorical stand? We have taken it because of the vulnerabilities of Singapore as a tiny city-state. And history is replete with tragedy and misfortune falling on small countries. As the Minister for Law just explained – both in his speech and reiterated in this House – ultimately, the victim is the smaller country. Ukraine and Ukrainians are paying the ultimate price. So, our position is clear: that it is wrong, a breach of international law, a flagrant violation of the principles of the UN Charter, the primary victim is the smaller country and it is people who are paying the ultimate price. If you want to get into a larger debate on foreign policy, then, I would draw your attention to the fact that we are not in Europe. We are in Southeast Asia. As we collectively craft a foreign policy that is both consistent and protects our national interests, I would say that, on a larger strategic stage, we must always be aware. In fact, if you do not mind, let me recite what I said a year ago: "The events in Ukraine go to the heart of the fundamental norms of international law and the UN Charter that prohibit the use of force and acts of aggression against another sovereign state. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear and gross violation of the international norms, a completely unacceptable precedent. This is an existential issue for us. Ukraine is much smaller than Russia, but it is much bigger than Singapore. A world order based on might is right or where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, such a world order is profoundly inimicable to the security and survival of small states.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, there is nothing new. Our position has been and will continue to be clear and consistent. I have said that on numerous occasions, not just in this House. Various Ministers have also said this, in various fora outside this House. I must add that foreign policy is something which we all have to take responsibility for, including the Opposition. I am very glad that in fact, the Opposition, of all parties, has ensured that politics stops at the border. I think I can quite safely say that, on behalf of every single Member in this House, our position remains that it was wrong of Russia, it was a breach of international law and of the principles of the UN Charter for them to launch the invasion of Ukraine. Having said that, I think we must also be very clear in our minds that there are a diversity of views. And when we are explaining these matters to the general public and to our population, or indeed, even in this House, it is not unreasonable to reflect the diversity of views. But reflecting the diversity of views does not alter our national position, based on a defence of our national interests and the principles which a small, tiny city-state like us must subscribe to. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I detect, actually, unanimity in this House, across the partisan divide and I think we should maintain that discipline, that cohesion and that unity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, let me state categorically – the statements of the Minister for Law reflect the views of the Government of Singapore. We know generally when each Minister is going to speak, we are aware of that. I must tell you we do not personally check every single line and sentence in our speeches and the speeches can evolve according to the circumstances of the event. Needless to say, under the principle of collective responsibility, you can take it that, as long as we are in charge, the statements of each Minister reflect the views of the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, on Indivisible Security, the Minister for Law has already explained it and I do not think I have got anything further to add.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore’s position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remains unchanged. We have taken – and we must continue to take – a clear stand that is consistent with our principles and our national interests. In the Ministerial Statement of 28 February 2022 on the "Situation in Ukraine and Its Implications", Singapore strongly condemned Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The invasion of a sovereign country is a gross violation of the principles of the UN Charter and of international law. The sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of all countries, big and small, must be respected.”
“Singapore contributes US$90,000 annually to the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre). In the past five years, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) sent officers to support the AHA Centre in the distribution of relief items in Rakhine State in 2018 and its Preliminary Needs Assessment (PNA) in 2019. Singapore has also contributed over S$1 million in bilateral aid to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of displaced persons from Rakhine State. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN's) work is primarily focused on helping to improve ground conditions in Rakhine State to create conducive conditions for repatriation, including through the PNA conducted by the AHA Centre and the ASEAN Secretariat's Ad-Hoc Support Team established to monitor the implementation of the PNA. Singapore is prepared to send further consignments of aid and stand ready to support future comprehensive needs assessments once repatriation commences.”
“MFA will meet this increased demand and deliver consular services to all Singaporeans promptly and effectively, by harnessing technology as well as through a new corps of professional first responders trained to provide 24/7 consular response and assistance to Singaporeans. National unity is essential for Singapore’s survival. Heightened geopolitical tensions have exacerbated the risk of foreign interference in our public discourse and shaping of opinions on global and domestic policies. We will continue to engage fellow Singaporeans on our foreign policy principles, so that they have a clear-eyed understanding of Singapore’s long-term national interests and vulnerabilities. With understanding, trust, and support from our citizens, Singapore will be on a stronger footing to chart our own course and act in our best interests. Despite the fraught external environment, we have invaluable strengths, including our reputation for stability and policy consistency, as well as high levels of public trust and support — which we do not take for granted. We will continue to safeguard and shore up our resilience and unity as Singaporeans, in Singapore or overseas, to navigate the challenges and seize the opportunities ahead.”
“For instance, we launched our new Sustainability Action Package to support developing countries’ priorities in sustainability and climate change. An inclusive and rules-based multilateral system is key to Singapore’s survival and prosperity as a small island city-state with unique vulnerabilities. We will continue to advocate adherence to, and strengthening of, multilateralism and international law. We will also continue making constructive contributions to emerging rules and norms governing the global commons, including in climate change and sustainability, cyberspace and outer space. For example, we have just successfully concluded negotiations under Singapore’s Presidency on a new United Nations Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Amidst the pushback against globalisation and free trade, we must continue to press ahead with global economic integration and seize opportunities in emerging areas. Singapore has been working with like-minded partners such as Australia, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Chile, on pathfinding initiatives, such as the modular and project-based Digital Economy Agreements and Green Economy Agreements. We encourage plurilateral initiatives, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, which facilitate trade cooperation and promote a forward-looking economic agenda. With the easing of COVID-19 travel restrictions worldwide, we expect greater demand for consular services as more Singaporeans resume travelling, and some may encounter problems or difficulties overseas.”
“Having ratified the agreements under the Expanded Framework between Singapore and Indonesia, we are exploring opportunities to collaborate on future-oriented issues with Indonesia, such as the digital economy, sustainable development, and human resource development, and the green economy including the energy transition. Singapore has also worked closely with Indonesia in the multilateral arena, including supporting its successful G20 Presidency last year, and its ASEAN Chairmanship this year to advance ASEAN integration. Singapore has a special and unique relationship with Brunei, with whom we are also expanding cooperation in education, the green economy, and supply chain resilience. MFA forges overlapping circles of friends as embodied in the open, inclusive, and ASEAN-centred regional architecture. The innermost circle comprises our immediate neighbours and ASEAN, which remains a cornerstone of our foreign policy. ASEAN-led mechanisms like the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Plus-Three, and the Plus-One summits bring all major powers and regional players, including the US, China, and India, to the same table. We welcome the interest of major powers to engage ASEAN on our own merits, and to take clear stakes in the peace, stability, and development of our region, which will create a stable balance of power in the Asia Pacific. Beyond our immediate neighbourhood, we work with other partners around the world to advance our shared interests and address common challenges. We continue to champion common causes with the other 107 members of the Forum of Small States. Our Singapore Cooperation Programme, which has seen the participation of close to 150,000 foreign officials, continues to evolve to meet the needs of fellow developing countries.”
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) upholds Singapore’s sovereignty, while advancing the interests of Singapore internationally and providing consular services to Singaporeans. Our mission remains constant, even as the world has become more complex and dangerous. Russia’s invasion of its neighbour Ukraine is a striking reminder that we must never take our independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity for granted. The rules-based multilateral order, which has underpinned global peace and prosperity, is under severe strain. Even as we emerge from the COVID-19 crisis, we see a perfect storm of multiple overlapping and interrelated crises in the security, economic, public health, climate, technological, and socio-political domains. Superpower rivalry between the United States (US) and China continues to sharpen, with increasing risks of mishaps and geopolitical miscalculations. To navigate this increasingly fractured global order while seizing new opportunities for Singaporeans, Singapore’s foreign policy must continue to be guided by our long-term national interests that are well understood and supported by our people. Our relations with our immediate neighbours remain important. We continue to work closely with them to deepen ties and expand cooperation in emerging areas. With Malaysia, the priority is to enhance our peoples’ lives and livelihoods through projects like the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link. At the same time, we will manage our differences pragmatically and constructively.”